Thesis: Sovereign states armed with nuclear weapons...
Antithesis: ...devastate Earth in World War III.
Synthesis: Post-war UN, then Solar Union, governments -
assume planetary, then interplanetary, sovereignty;
monopolize nuclear weapons but to restore and maintain peace, not to perpetuate war;
rebuild the devastated Earth with automation and cybernation;
implement educational and social policies formulated by the Psychotechnic Instutute.
Comments:
in this triad, the thesis directly generates its antithesis;
a single state synthesizes the previously opposed sovereignties and applies lessons learned from the antithesis of nuclear war;
technology, already present in the thesis, is not negated but enhanced with automation and cybernation;
in an attempt to prevent continued psychological and social conflicts, science is applied not only to the devastated environment but also to humanity;
thus, this is a comprehensive synthesis.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And of course we both know real history is never going to be so neat and precise. Rather, we will see lots of loose ends and "contradictions."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, wherever there is a contradiction, a Hegelian looks for a possible synthesis.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still find Hegelianism too strained, unconvincing, implausibly SCHEMATIC.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the best parts of Hegelianism are dynamic and, I think, valid:
the interpenetration of opposites;
interaction as causing and motivating change;
the transformation of quantity into quality;
spiral development, borne out by evidence - plants unconscious, animals conscious, human beings self-conscious.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But in that case you don't NEED Hegelian terminology at all. Simply use evolutionary terms.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I find "antithesis," "synthesis" and "dialectics" very helpful.
Paul.
Sean,
You are a root and branch man. When you disagree with something, you disagree all the way, every jot and tittle. This is unnecessary. You might miss whatever is of value on the other side of the argument. I am not conservative but I understand arguments for conservatism from our correspondence. Some things must be conserved. Everything cannot change all the time. Major social changes should happen only when a majority wants them. Your "legitimacy" is the Chinese "Mandate of Heaven" as against the European "Divine Right of Kings."
But (I add) when a majority want structural change, they should implement it in the teeth of the inevitable opposition. Thus, we have an agreement (thesis), the need for some social stability, and a disagreement (antithesis) about how to implement change. After a period of conflict, we might find some kind of synthesis but these arguments have to be lived, not just debated.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I understand this argument, but real people in real time don't THINK in terms of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, etc. Actual, real societies and their institutions are festooned or "cluttered" with exceptions, loose ends, "contradictions," stubbornly lingering "archaicisms," etc.
For example, we STILL have an Electoral College for electing US Presidents. And that has led to "oddities" like Presidents being elected having a majority of the College's votes but a minority in the popular vote. That has led to frequent, enraged demands from the losing party (usually the Democrats) for abolishing the Electoral College. I disagree with such demands because the function of the College was to prevent the smaller states from being completely dominated and steam rollered by the larger, more populous states. Also, I don't expect efforts to abolish the College to get, any time soon, ratification from the necessary three fourths of the needed for amending the Constitution.
So, I insist, along with conservatives generally, on the need for consensus, compromise, evidence of genuine need, etc., before any potentially drastic and risky changes are accepted.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course not. We can apply concepts to society without thinking that most people apply those concepts. Christians think that people "sin" but most people do not think like that.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I mostly agree. But if most people in the UK or US are Christian, then that use or meaning of "sin" will be how they think.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the same applies here. Some of us think that dialectics, interaction between opposites, explains change.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That still strikes me as too vague to carry much conviction.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sure but the point here is just that some people do think like that whether or not their terminology is widely accepted or applied.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But mostly, it seems in this context, by academic types, not politicians and everyday people.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And some political campaigners, not professional politicians.
Paul.
Post a Comment